Kenpo Training

[Danjo]

The average person does not have the commitment for the second, nor is it especially suitable intellectually for the children that drive the commercial market.

Well that is certainly true of most American children. A couple of years ago I watched the traveling Shaolin Monk Show and the 8 year-old in that group was phenomenal. Certainly the art was the commercialized Chinese government Wu Shu (which is mostly acrobatics) but he looked damn near as good as the adults did. However, in our fast-food, video game culture the kids don't have the discipline to master anything properly. Hell, neither do most of today's "adults" given how they were raised. In the past thirty years or so our country has gone into a reversal of sorts. The goal used to be to reach adulthood and every kid wanted to be a certain kind of adult when they grew up. We all pretended to be adults when we played games. Even the TV shows that featured kids showed the adults as sensible people that should be listened to by the kids. Now, it's the opposite. The kids shows depict the children as the smart ones and the adults as the bumbling clueless creatures that must be alternately patronized or thwarted. Adults are obsessed with youth and retaining it for as long as possible rather than gracefully aging. No wonder kids don't like to listen to adults and take correction from their instructors!

I'm curious about the kids in the rest of the world. Anyone from somewhere besides the USA that can give us their impression of how the children are in terms of discipline? How does this impact their Kenpo training etc.?

 

[MJS]

Your confusion is driven by two diametrically opposed principles of learning the arts. The first is the modern eclectic perspective of kenpo created by Ed Parker Sr. (or perhaps other arts driven by Bruce Lee), which requires degrees of tailoring to be commercially successful. This interpretation has little or no defined physical basics, and is a conceptually driven vehicle. It promotes the ideas that you articulated.

The second is the reality seen in the traditional arts that says you must learn proper physical basics and be taught by a highly skilled and knowledgeable teacher. This requires consistent, corrected, and focused learning not generally available in the ‘motion based’ vehicle. It does not allow variations based on personal preferences until such time you have mastered basic skills, and core principles of execution. Therefore, it is not generally suitable for a commercial business, but in fact does contain the information needed to make the intelligent decisions to begin the true tailoring process promoted in the first.

These are obviously major contradictions. One designed for commercial success, and supply a reasonable level of martial skills but only commensurate with the knowledge, skill, and commitment level of the teacher. The other is designed to take you to higher levels of skill and knowledge, but is initially restrictive in the learning process. The average person does not have the commitment for the second, nor is it especially suitable intellectually for the children that drive the commercial market.

Thus, you like many others are caught in a dichotomy of philosophies. Those reared in the commercial market of the arts are often led to believe the commercial philosophy is the prevailing and best methodology, and in fact commercially, it is and it’s popularity confirms that.

Nevertheless, the personal preferences of tailoring lead to a functional ceiling of skill and knowledge that is born and bred into its teachers. We all laugh at the old Chinese movies where the teacher corrects the smallest of details over, and over again. However this is actually how you must be taught if you wish to have the foundation that will allow you one day to make those tailoring decisions from a perspective of real knowledge and not ‘concepts.’

So tailoring is good and in abundance in the traditional Chinese Arts, and that is where all the different ‘family styles’ come from. However tailoring is an old concept better left to those who know what they are doing after years of proper training under a keen knowledgeable teacher. Parker simply allowed everyone in his commercial arts to do whatever they wanted, as long as they were satisfied with the results. This is pure genius. If you didn’t like the results, you can only blame yourself. He only gave you ‘guidelines.’

Bottom line, you can’t have it both ways. The commercial arts, (especially kenpo), is full of martial scholars who don’t have the knowledge or the skill to back up or even understand what they do yet. However, because of the lack of truly qualified teachers, most have no choice. It is essential under these circumstances to lower expectations of what the vehicle you have chosen is capable of delivering, and ignore the criticism of all but the most qualified of teachers. Even then, ask for ‘physical’ verification of any idea or concepts.

Most will more likely look to other more traditional arts to fill in the holes, however this method too is flawed. “Grafting’ various arts brings it’s positives and negatives. Unfortunately, it takes a knowledgeable teacher again to know the difference.

Doc, in your opinion, what seperates the motion/commercial schools from the rest? Is it going to matter if someone runs his school as his sole source of income? Some might get the impression that if thats the case, hes going to care more about how much $$ he can bring in, rather than development of students. Or is someone who teaches on a PT basis, not relying on that extra $$, going to be a more quality person?

Mike

 

[kenposikh]

Doc, in your opinion, what seperates the motion/commercial schools from the rest? Is it going to matter if someone runs his school as his sole source of income? Some might get the impression that if thats the case, hes going to care more about how much $$ he can bring in, rather than development of students. Or is someone who teaches on a PT basis, not relying on that extra $$, going to be a more quality person?

Mike

Hi MIke,

Let me see if I can provide some thoughts for you. I teach in the UK not professionaly so $$$ is not my incentive in fact my primary goal is the knowledge passed onto my students and a duty of care. I need to be sure that the Kenpo I am teaching is going to be effective for them even when I'm not around. I cannot afford to let my students believe that they can defend themselves if the stuff I am teaching is inadequate.

Reality of the attacks is paramount a knowledge and understanding of basic anatomy and correct basics is also paramount, this takes time and effort on the part of the students hence gradings are carried out after a minimum of 6 months training on a single syllabus. Many students in todays society cannot cope with the intensity and repetitive nature of this type of training and will drop out and you know what I don't care. Now that is an attitude that a full time inbstructor cannot afford to take due to a loss of income, so what happens gradings are more frequent belt levels go up faster and the money keeps coming in because people have a carrot like incentive to get their next belt. How long does it take to get a Dan grade well within our organisation 6 and a half years can people cope with that.


I'm not saying that someone who teaches on a full time basis is teaching ineffetive stuff but is it the most effective and will it work.

Amrik

 

[MJS]

Hi MIke,

Let me see if I can provide some thoughts for you. I teach in the UK not professionaly so $$$ is not my incentive in fact my primary goal is the knowledge passed onto my students and a duty of care. I need to be sure that the Kenpo I am teaching is going to be effective for them even when I'm not around. I cannot afford to let my students believe that they can defend themselves if the stuff I am teaching is inadequate.

Reality of the attacks is paramount a knowledge and understanding of basic anatomy and correct basics is also paramount, this takes time and effort on the part of the students hence gradings are carried out after a minimum of 6 months training on a single syllabus. Many students in todays society cannot cope with the intensity and repetitive nature of this type of training and will drop out and you know what I don't care. Now that is an attitude that a full time inbstructor cannot afford to take due to a loss of income, so what happens gradings are more frequent belt levels go up faster and the money keeps coming in because people have a carrot like incentive to get their next belt. How long does it take to get a Dan grade well within our organisation 6 and a half years can people cope with that.


I'm not saying that someone who teaches on a full time basis is teaching ineffetive stuff but is it the most effective and will it work.

Amrik

Thank you for a very well thought out reply!:asian:

I agree, the way some schools operate, they are more of a money making belt factory, than a quality school. This really is sad IMO. Personally, I'm not one to be belt hungry. I'm more interested in learning the material, having a very good understanding of it, and being able to apply it. I have to say that I'm fortunate today, to have current instructors, as well as some past, that were able to provide me with what I was looking for.

Thanks again for your reply.

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

People must do what they have to do, but when a real instructor comes along and can show them their deficiencies, they shouldn't get upset because they thought they knew what they were doing and are vested in a belt. Be good.

I think this should be true for anybody. No matter who you are and how high your skills may be, somebody out there can still teach you something that can improve what you do. In the meantime we all train with what we have because the only alternative is to NOT train and that would be silly. But if you meet someone who you believe has something to teach you, and can help you improve, by all means jump on the opportunity. Until that happens, take what you have and make it the best that you can.

There are few people out there who are truly GREAT martial artists, and probably fewer who are truly GREAT teachers, and not many of us get to train under these few. But that doesn't mean that we can't take what we have learned and become damn good and effective. If you trust your teacher and trust what you have learned, then take it and run with it and make it the best it can be for you. If it is working for you, that is really what matters.

 

[kamishinkan]

Just a couple of thoughts to add to the pile....
It is hard to determine the differences between the "modern" martial arts and the more "traditional" until you come into contact with them. I mean by this it is sometimes hard to put into defineable terms. In one hand the modern schools tend to be diploma mills, pumping out Black belts. On the other hand I know of plenty of cases in Japan where very traditional schools developed Black Belts in as little as 2 years! You would get generally laughed at in the US for that!
I believe it has to do with mindset most of all. The traditional Martial artist is in the martial arts for other reasons than just being able to "kick butt". The traditional atmosphere tends to lead a student to something greater than HIMSELF and HIS abilities. Rather you become a part of a tradition that has stood the test of time, that does not require someone to "recreate the wheel" every time someone thinks they can do it better!
The traditionalist is satisfied with being a part of a tradition, knowing that after learning the principles of the system, they can be adapted to suit most situations he may find himself in. The modern mentality is more in line with producing students that are short cut oriented, who tend to be all about them and their martial arts. You find this especially with them that bounce around studying everything they can, never mastering anything. Traditionalist will stay with their art, in many cases, for life. Some never training in anything else, except maybe the occasional seminar or side training with someone they know. This is also debateable since some of the old "traditionalist" we all talk about with fond memories trained in several arts as well. My point is that it is generally hard to define the two but when you meet one you know where they stand very quickly!:asian:

 

[Doc]

Well that is certainly true of most American children. A couple of years ago I watched the traveling Shaolin Monk Show and the 8 year-old in that group was phenomenal. Certainly the art was the commercialized Chinese government Wu Shu (which is mostly acrobatics) but he looked damn near as good as the adults did. However, in our fast-food, video game culture the kids don't have the discipline to master anything properly. Hell, neither do most of today's "adults" given how they were raised. In the past thirty years or so our country has gone into a reversal of sorts. The goal used to be to reach adulthood and every kid wanted to be a certain kind of adult when they grew up. We all pretended to be adults when we played games. Even the TV shows that featured kids showed the adults as sensible people that should be listened to by the kids. Now, it's the opposite. The kids shows depict the children as the smart ones and the adults as the bumbling clueless creatures that must be alternately patronized or thwarted. Adults are obsessed with youth and retaining it for as long as possible rather than gracefully aging. No wonder kids don't like to listen to adults and take correction from their instructors!

I'm curious about the kids in the rest of the world. Anyone from somewhere besides the USA that can give us their impression of how the children are in terms of discipline? How does this impact their Kenpo training etc.?

There you go preachin' again. (I like it when you do that )

 

[Doc]

I think this should be true for anybody. No matter who you are and how high your skills may be, somebody out there can still teach you something that can improve what you do. In the meantime we all train with what we have because the only alternative is to NOT train and that would be silly. But if you meet someone who you believe has something to teach you, and can help you improve, by all means jump on the opportunity. Until that happens, take what you have and make it the best that you can.

There are few people out there who are truly GREAT martial artists, and probably fewer who are truly GREAT teachers, and not many of us get to train under these few. But that doesn't mean that we can't take what we have learned and become damn good and effective. If you trust your teacher and trust what you have learned, then take it and run with it and make it the best it can be for you. If it is working for you, that is really what matters.

Absolutely sir.

 

[Doc]

Just a couple of thoughts to add to the pile....
It is hard to determine the differences between the "modern" martial arts and the more "traditional" until you come into contact with them. I mean by this it is sometimes hard to put into defineable terms. In one hand the modern schools tend to be diploma mills, pumping out Black belts. On the other hand I know of plenty of cases in Japan where very traditional schools developed Black Belts in as little as 2 years! You would get generally laughed at in the US for that!
I believe it has to do with mindset most of all. The traditional Martial artist is in the martial arts for other reasons than just being able to "kick butt". The traditional atmosphere tends to lead a student to something greater than HIMSELF and HIS abilities. Rather you become a part of a tradition that has stood the test of time, that does not require someone to "recreate the wheel" every time someone thinks they can do it better!
The traditionalist is satisfied with being a part of a tradition, knowing that after learning the principles of the system, they can be adapted to suit most situations he may find himself in. The modern mentality is more in line with producing students that are short cut oriented, who tend to be all about them and their martial arts. You find this especially with them that bounce around studying everything they can, never mastering anything. Traditionalist will stay with their art, in many cases, for life. Some never training in anything else, except maybe the occasional seminar or side training with someone they know. This is also debateable since some of the old "traditionalist" we all talk about with fond memories trained in several arts as well. My point is that it is generally hard to define the two but when you meet one you know where they stand very quickly!:asian:

Well said, Mr. Collins.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think this should be true for anybody. No matter who you are and how high your skills may be, somebody out there can still teach you something that can improve what you do. In the meantime we all train with what we have because the only alternative is to NOT train and that would be silly. But if you meet someone who you believe has something to teach you, and can help you improve, by all means jump on the opportunity. Until that happens, take what you have and make it the best that you can.

There are few people out there who are truly GREAT martial artists, and probably fewer who are truly GREAT teachers, and not many of us get to train under these few. But that doesn't mean that we can't take what we have learned and become damn good and effective. If you trust your teacher and trust what you have learned, then take it and run with it and make it the best it can be for you. If it is working for you, that is really what matters.

I wanted to add another thought here: as we grow in our own development, we become much more selective about who we are willing to train under. Once we have had a number of years of training under our belts, a lot of those guys with fancy titles and high belts just don't seem as impressive as they once did. We start to realize that many of them really don't have much to teach. Interesting how that perspective changes.

 

[Doc]

Doc, in your opinion, what seperates the motion/commercial schools from the rest? Is it going to matter if someone runs his school as his sole source of income? Some might get the impression that if thats the case, hes going to care more about how much $$ he can bring in, rather than development of students. Or is someone who teaches on a PT basis, not relying on that extra $$, going to be a more quality person?

Mike

In general sir, human nature dictates when any endeavor is relied upon to feed yourself, compromise is inevitable even as an income supplement. If you have a family, the sacrifices you might make for yourself you certainly wouldn't want to visit upon your loved ones. But even with the noblest of intentions, in general those who were reared in the commercial system, were brought along in that same atmosphere and were probably not given the best of information and/or judged under the strictest of guidelines. Of course this is not their fault, unless they become enamored with their belts and status, and reject good information when it surfaces, whatever the source. But when you are forced to accept the ton of children, or physically challenged, it makes it difficult anyway. You begin to focus on how bad you will allow someone to be before you promote them, instead of forcing students to meet lofty physical goals.

Last but not least, if your instructor's history is based in the commercial environment, than chances are truly basic and advanced information was not available to him simply because it was not included in the commercial system he learned. Keep in mind, in Ed Parker's Kenpo-Karate there is a tremedous amout of information given, and much that is not becuase it would not fare well in a 'business school.' In the beginning the biggest platform that is left out is 'basics.'

Mr. Parker only put basic concepts and ideas in the commercial system, and left it to the students and teachers to decipher even that the material. They didn't, and chose instead to focus on 'techniques' as opposed to stances. If they had, I'm convinced he would have given some more. Even those that do, are left with the void of information not genrally included.

This is not a put down and neither good or bad. I've often said, "It is what it is." It is designed specifically for a commercial market and therefore doesn't contain or need certain information, and the necessary training that would turn students and teachers off and cost revenue. So in many instances you're left with good people, with good intentions, who still fall short because of the information.

Most of those who have had significant previous training and rank, and have studied or seminared with me and had their basics picked apart know exactly what I mean.

"Physical proof dispels myths." - Ed Parker Sr.
"Everything matters." - Ron Chapél

 

[Danjo]

Just a couple of thoughts to add to the pile....
It is hard to determine the differences between the "modern" martial arts and the more "traditional" until you come into contact with them. I mean by this it is sometimes hard to put into defineable terms. In one hand the modern schools tend to be diploma mills, pumping out Black belts. On the other hand I know of plenty of cases in Japan where very traditional schools developed Black Belts in as little as 2 years! You would get generally laughed at in the US for that!
I believe it has to do with mindset most of all. The traditional Martial artist is in the martial arts for other reasons than just being able to "kick butt". The traditional atmosphere tends to lead a student to something greater than HIMSELF and HIS abilities. Rather you become a part of a tradition that has stood the test of time, that does not require someone to "recreate the wheel" every time someone thinks they can do it better!
The traditionalist is satisfied with being a part of a tradition, knowing that after learning the principles of the system, they can be adapted to suit most situations he may find himself in. The modern mentality is more in line with producing students that are short cut oriented, who tend to be all about them and their martial arts. You find this especially with them that bounce around studying everything they can, never mastering anything. Traditionalist will stay with their art, in many cases, for life. Some never training in anything else, except maybe the occasional seminar or side training with someone they know. This is also debateable since some of the old "traditionalist" we all talk about with fond memories trained in several arts as well. My point is that it is generally hard to define the two but when you meet one you know where they stand very quickly!:asian:

Yes that's true. Many of us have heard of the 7 months it took Joe Lewis to get to black belt in Okinawa and the 6 months for Mike Stone etc. That Lewis and Stone were able to take what they learned and do great things with it is more proof that they are unusually gifted than that it's a good practice to go that fast. Plus, Lewis and Stone never stopped learning after they got to black belt.

Ed Parker once said that the Americans used to think that the Japanese Karateka were vastly superior to the average American Karateka because of how they looked when they got over here. But after he had gone to Japan and toured several of the dojos, he soon realized that the average Japanese Karateka was the same as the average American. The trick was that they only sent over their very best to the USA back then. Then, once they got here, they would say that they were very average. That was the head-trip that they put on us at the time.

 

[Danjo]

There you go preachin' again. (I like it when you do that )

It's the old high school teacher in me.

 

[Carol]

In general sir, human nature dictates when any endeavor is relied upon to feed yourself, compromise is inevitable even as an income supplement. If you have a family, the sacrifices you might make for yourself you certainly wouldn't want to visit upon your loved ones. But even with the noblest of intentions, in general those who were reared in the commercial system, were brought along in that same atmosphere and were probably not given the best of information and/or judged under the strictest of guidelines. Of course this is not their fault, unless they become enamored with their belts and status, and reject good information when it surfaces, whatever the source. But when you are forced to accept the ton of children, or physically challenged, it makes it difficult anyway. You begin to focus on how bad you will allow someone to be before you promote them, instead of forcing students to meet lofty physical goals.

Last but not least, if your instructor's history is based in the commercial environment, than chances are truly basic and advanced information was not available to him simply because it was not included in the commercial system he learned. Keep in mind, in Ed Parker's Kenpo-Karate there is a tremedous amout of information given, and much that is not becuase it would not fare well in a 'business school.' In the beginning the biggest platform that is left out is 'basics.'

Mr. Parker only put basic concepts and ideas in the commercial system, and left it to the students and teachers to decipher even that the material. They didn't, and chose instead to focus on 'techniques' as opposed to stances. If they had, I'm convinced he would have given some more. Even those that do, are left with the void of information not genrally included.

This is not a put down and neither good or bad. I've often said, "It is what it is." It is designed specifically for a commercial market and therefore doesn't contain or need certain information, and the necessary training that would turn students and teachers off and cost revenue. So in many instances you're left with good people, with good intentions, who still fall short because of the information.

Most of those who have had significant previous training and rank, and have studied or seminared with me and had their basics picked apart know exactly what I mean.

"Physical proof dispels myths." - Ed Parker Sr.
"Everything matters." - Ron Chapél

Sir, I am not sure if that is the complete picture.

With full respect I can see your what you are saying about commercialization. The problem that I see with the business of Kenpo sir is not the Kenpo, but the business. I understand that you are not slamming Kenpo as a business, neither am I. However, where I differ is not the quality of the people in the art, it is the lack of business skills required for a business endeavor. Long 5 sir does nothing to prepare one for P&L responsibilty.

If Karate day care and tough guys looking to bust heads is the reality of many Kenpo schools, then sir I rhetorically question why that is. The workers that make up Corporate America are spending billions on self-improvement and fitness. The market capitalization in the sector is huge. yet the Arts have not penetrated this demographic with any kind of significance.

Commercial Kenpo, a business school, these are all business enedeavors. Such an endeavor requires both art skills and business skills to succeed. But...one defaults to one's level of training, whether in a street fight or in the business world. The successful schools that have desireable student body are probably not lead by black belts that wring their hands and whine about how Americans do not understand martial artists. Instead, they have likey lead by those with the savviness to reach and secure their base.

If one is a brilliant chef, that does not guarantee that one can run a successful restaurant. It follows that if one is a gifted teacher, that does not gurantee that one can run a school. Without business knowledge, one's talents have little commercial value.

 

[Doc]

Sir, I am not sure if that is the complete picture.

With full respect I can see your what you are saying about commercialization. The problem that I see with the business of Kenpo sir is not the Kenpo, but the business. I understand that you are not slamming Kenpo as a business, neither am I. However, where I differ is not the quality of the people in the art, it is the lack of business skills required for a business endeavor. Long 5 sir does nothing to prepare one for P&L responsibilty.

If Karate day care and tough guys looking to bust heads is the reality of many Kenpo schools, then sir I rhetorically question why that is. The workers that make up Corporate America are spending billions on self-improvement and fitness. The market capitalization in the sector is huge. yet the Arts have not penetrated this demographic with any kind of significance.

Commercial Kenpo, a business school, these are all business enedeavors. Such an endeavor requires both art skills and business skills to succeed. But...one defaults to one's level of training, whether in a street fight or in the business world. The successful schools that have desireable student body are probably not lead by black belts that wring their hands and whine about how Americans do not understand martial artists. Instead, they have likey lead by those with the savviness to reach and secure their base.

If one is a brilliant chef, that does not guarantee that one can run a successful restaurant. It follows that if one is a gifted teacher, that does not gurantee that one can run a school. Without business knowledge, one's talents have little commercial value.

While I agree with your assessment, if you had the curriculum, and if you had the business sense, they contradict each other. Business would require you accept those that would not be capable of learning the curriculum, and the real curriculum is not a good business model for your typical customer. Ed Parker knew this and that is why he created the motion business model. It accepts all comers and satisfies it's customers on many levels.

 

[Hand Sword]

Would it be fair to say then, or assume then that Kenpo is Kenpo. All that is present in your way, and not focussed on in the "commercial" way, is also present, just hidden behind the scenes?

 

[Doc]

While I agree with your assessment, if you had the curriculum, and if you had the business sense, they contradict each other. Business would require you accept those that would not be capable of learning the curriculum, and the real curriculum is not a good business model for your typical customer. Ed Parker knew this and that is why he created the motion business model. It accepts all comers and satisfies it's customers on many levels.

And to finish the thought, the commercial system does not contain the information of the non-business curriculum. Why would it? It would be like a screen door on a submarine. Totally unnecessary for what it is designed to do. Those taught and reared in the commercial system want to make it more than it is, but that is impossible without the knowledge of other curriculum. If you look at the original seniors, none of them practice or teach it, opting instead to stick with pre-motion based material.

 

[Hand Sword]

How one chooses to teach or do kenpo is "their " way of doing it. That doesn't make it "the" way. What is not focussed on has to be there, if not, you couldn't "tinker" with those students and "fix" the problems. Kenpo is what it is.

 

[DavidCC]

if you had the curriculum, and if you had the business sense, they contradict each other

Doc, can you give us an example of a piece of the non-motion based curriculum that contradicts the commercial business model?

 

[Danjo]

Most arts get watered down due to financial concerns. It seems that what is being said is that Parker simply gave a model that didn't have to be watered down as it was designed with the bussiness in mind and that he continued to develop the non-business model on his own.